Obama okays 17,000 new troops to Afghanistan

[jet_porkins]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29242187/

About 8,000 Marines are expected to go in first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops. Some 34,000 U.S. troops are already in Afghanistan.

Of the 17,000 troops authorized, deployment orders have been issued for 12,000 and some of those are being reassigned from roles in Iraq.

Here we go again.

 

[Warped]

and everyone thought he was going to end the wars....so much for politics. people will say anything to get into office

 

[Vegeta897]

/continues feeling secure in not caring about politics

Hahahahaha

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

and everyone thought he was going to end the wars....so much for politics. people will say anything to get into office

What? Pulling troops back out of Iraq and focusing more on Afghanistan was one of the things he said he was going to do.

 

[Warped]

What? Pulling troops back out of Iraq and focusing more on Afghanistan was one of the things he said he was going to do.

recently but not like 2 years ago

 

[PimpinPenguin]

recently but not like 2 years ago

Alot changes in 2 years. Still they are going to get Slaughtered. It's an impossible win, the troops already there are pinned down and are getting killed by the day. The Russians failed and so will the US.

 

[Warped]

Alot changes in 2 years. Still they are going to get Slaughtered. It's an impossible win, the troops already there are pinned down and are getting killed by the day. The Russians failed and so will the US.

history has shown that no one has invaded Afghanistan and won. Its been like that for centuries. people need to read more history books

watch this frontline documentary about the Taliban and the history of Afghanistan...its really interesting.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

 

[Sheepo]

I don't think anyone expects to "win" in Afghanistan, but a surge can definitely bolster the fighting force to help maintain it for as long as we need it.

 

[Emporius]

While I do believe all forces there will have a challenge, you must realize that this is not the exact same situation as has risen in the past.

 

[Krynn72]

I agree with this move. If anyone has a chance to oust the Taliban, it would be the US military. Unfortunately this move probably isnt nearly enough. We'd need to commit to it with similar aggression and forces that we did with Iraq in the beginning.


Also we need to not **** it up like we did with Iraq.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Surely Obama is smart enough to realize that Afghanistan is a lost cause?

Well evidently not, but you know. As OP said, here we go again.

 

[Eejit]

history has shown that no one has invaded Afghanistan and won.

Alexander.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I agree with this move. If anyone has a chance to oust the Taliban, it would be the US military. Unfortunately this move probably isnt nearly enough. We'd need to commit to it with similar aggression and forces that we did with Iraq in the beginning.


Also we need to not **** it up like we did with Iraq.

You have a better chance then the Russians did? At least the Russians were not half way across the world and could use the East European states bordering Afghanistan. The Taliban will never give up, you can't beat the will of the people who are willing to fight till the very end. They know the terrain like the back of their hand. And your technology means shit there.
You are going to get your ass kicked there just like you did in Vietnam.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Afghanistan is pointless. All of those new Gulf wars are pointless. Yes, America wants to act like Captain America, but if a country chooses to follow other directions, let it be. No need to brutally change their minds.

 

[nurizeko]

What is it with America and this stubborn refusal to pull out of a lost war?.

Pick your battles, you cant bring democracy to everyone at the end of a barrel.

Alexander.

He didn't stay and it didn't remain his for very long.

 

[Gunner]

Alot changes in 2 years. Still they are going to get Slaughtered. It's an impossible win, the troops already there are pinned down and are getting killed by the day. The Russians failed and so will the US.

Russians withdrew because the US backed the mujaheds with money & weapons.

 

[Eejit]

He didn't stay and it didn't remain his for very long.

He was busy conquering other regions and died young. He invaded and won, like I said, so what's your point?

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Russians withdrew because the US backed the mujaheds with money & weapons.

And where do you think the Taliban are getting their AK47's from. The Russians were smart and knew Afghanistan wasn't worth it and withdrew. The same thing us happening the Russains are backing the Taliban providing them with weapons.

 

[nurizeko]

He was busy conquering other regions and died young. He invaded and won, like I said, so what's your point?

We won the invasion of Afghanistan to yet here we are years later still trying to win "properly".

In essence, what I'm saying is that conquering the known world and holding it are two distinct concepts, a fact that invaders and occupiers throughout history have continuously failed to grasp.


Counting his successor states one can concede that his "legacy" held onto Afghanistan the longest, shame that's of absolutely no help to NATO.

 

[Absinthe]

Obama has been calling for a redeployment of troops in Afghanistan for a long time now. What's with the ****ing surprise?

 

[Bob_Marley]

This combined with the effect of the credit crunch on the taliban might make the situation die down for a bit.

Even the Taliban are feeling the effects of the global financial crisis.

A Turkish militant group, which has hundreds of Turkish, Chechen and Uzbek fighters allied to the Taliban, reported that a sharp drop in donations is hampering its fight against NATO soldiers.

The group, based near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, made the revelation on an Islamic website last Friday.

Just as financial support from donors in the Middle East and Turkey has dropped off, prices for ammunition and weapons on the black market are skyrocketing.

A rocket shell that used to cost $20 US now goes for $100, according to Seyfulkahar al-Muhaciri, part of the volunteer brigade of fighters.

A spike in the cost of copper a year ago pushed up ammunition prices, and the world's slumping economy has forced Arab donors to cut their support, said John Thompson, a Canadian military and security analyst.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/02/11/taliban.html

 

[jet_porkins]

This combined with the effect of the credit crunch on the taliban might make the situation die down for a bit.

So really the stimulus bill was actually intended to worsen the economy in the interest of national security. I wouldn't put it passed them.

 

[Solaris]

Good move on Obama's part there.

The Taliban really are some of the most evil people on the planet. No human being should have to live under their rule. It is most definitely a battle worth fighting.

 

[CptStern]

yes because now it's much better than before, right solaris?

 

[Escaep]

And your technology means shit there.
You are going to get your ass kicked there just like you did in Vietnam.

Why do you seem to name the war in Afghanistan as America's war? American isn't the only country there...

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Why do you seem to name the war in Afghanistan as America's war? American isn't the only country there...

That's because the war on terror is your war. You dragged in all the other country's in. There are very few NATO troops in Afghanistan. You are the main force there, if this fails it will be Americas fault not NATO's.

 

[Officer Combine]

Good move on Obama's part there.

The Taliban really are some of the most evil people on the planet. No human being should have to live under their rule. It is most definitely a battle worth fighting.

Yes but lets review wars: WWII, the Nazis opress the Jews...No war. Friendly country invaded, lets go kick their butts. You can't really stop a government opressing a people.

 

[Solaris]

Yes but lets review wars: WWII, the Nazis opress the Jews...No war. Friendly country invaded, lets go kick their butts. You can't really stop a government opressing a people.

What?

You are picking a single example and saying because we CHOSE not to invade; to do so any time in the future would be impossible??? That's a ridiculous generalisation.

You can stop a government; by invading; like we did in Iraq. How many Kurds has suddam hussien gassed in the last few years? None.

 

[Escaep]

That's because the war on terror is your war. You dragged in all the other country's in. There are very few NATO troops in Afghanistan. You are the main force there, if this fails it will be Americas fault not NATO's.

It is our war? We are the only country affected by terrorism? NATO should be doing more to help out in Afghanistan as the war on terror should truly be an international effort.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

It is our war? We are the only country affected by terrorism? NATO should be doing more to help out in Afghanistan as the war on terror should truly be an international effort.

Haven't you noticed that the main country's that are fighting terrorism or more susceptible to terrorism. The threat is alot higher here and in the US then everywhere else. The reason is because of these stupid wars. That's why you don't get country's like France really helping, so that they don't become a prime target like us. It's our foreign policy that's brought this on, if Britain and America didn't act like world police alot of this wouldn't have happened. We are just as much to blame as them.
And everyone knows that even if you beat the Taliban the world will be no safer. The majority of them can't harm you, they haven't got the cash to catch a plane to the US just to blow you up. We've played right into their hands by going to them instead. Al Qaeda is worldwide, 7/7 was done by home-grown terrorists. It's not like you can go to Afghanistan kill Bin Laden and it's all over. There will aways be people fighting back they will never surrender.

 

[Kadayi]

What? Pulling troops back out of Iraq and focusing more on Afghanistan was one of the things he said he was going to do.

This is true. I'm not sure why people are surprised by this. The idea was to get out of Iraq ASAP and instead concentrate on Afganistan, rather than fight on two fronts.

history has shown that no one has invaded Afghanistan and won. Its been like that for centuries. people need to read more history books

watch this frontline documentary about the Taliban and the history of Afghanistan...its really interesting.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

History 101: The past does not dictate the future.

I agree with this move. If anyone has a chance to oust the Taliban, it would be the US military. Unfortunately this move probably isnt nearly enough. We'd need to commit to it with similar aggression and forces that we did with Iraq in the beginning.

I agree that it doesn't sound like a significant level of force, however I expect a lot of the troops deployed will be specialist units such as recon snipers etc. It's going to be a lot more mountain warfare, than urban conflict I'd of thought.

Russians withdrew because the US backed the mujaheds with money & weapons.

This, also.

And where do you think the Taliban are getting their AK47's from. The Russians were smart and knew Afghanistan wasn't worth it and withdrew. The same thing us happening the Russains are backing the Taliban providing them with weapons.

Have you actually got any evidence to support that claim? I find it hard to envisage that the Russians are actually financially backing Muslim Extremists (the same Muislim extremists who killed bucketloads of Russians a few years previously), simply because they are fighting the good old US of A. I'd say the money is coming more from Saudi Arabia if anywhere.


OMFG, multi-quote... I'm turning in Stern :dozey:

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Have you actually got any evidence to support that claim? I find it hard to envisage that the Russians are actually financially backing Muslim Extremists (the same Muislim extremists who killed bucketloads of Russians a few years previously), simply because they are fighting the good old US of A. I'd say the money is coming more from Saudi Arabia if anywhere.

Not financially, but they are selling weapons to them. I remember a report on Sky News were they saw the Taliban buying Russian made weapons. The Russians sell the weapons to the Taliban the Taliban uses them to kill Americans and the Russians profit from it.

 

[Kadayi]

Not financially, but they are selling weapons to them. I remember a report on Sky News were they saw the Taliban buying Russian made weapons. The Russians sell the weapons to the Taliban the Taliban uses them to kill Americans and the Russians profit from it.

Russia the government, or Arms dealers who just also happen to be Russian/or have access to Russian equipment?

 

[Sheepo]

What is it with European people and making ridiculously exaggerated comments about America as a whole based off of pieces of news that reflect nothing on what you're saying?

Fixed.

 

[Escaep]

. There will aways be people fighting back they will never surrender.

Does that mean we "give up" in Afghanistan, pack our bags, and go home? What is that going to solve? It is like weeds in your yard, you can keep killing them and keeping them down or you can give up and let them devour the rest of the beautiful green grass.

 

[Zeus]

Obama has been calling for a redeployment of troops in Afghanistan for a long time now. What's with the ****ing surprise?

People seem to think that Afghanistan = Iraq, I think. Afghanistan's the only place our troops should have been in the first place, we had no business going into Iraq and ****ing everything up, but that's a discussion that's been beaten to death for about 5 years now.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Does that mean we "give up" in Afghanistan, pack our bags, and go home? What is that going to solve? It is like weeds in your yard, you can keep killing them and keeping them down or you can give up and let them devour the rest of the beautiful green grass.

So what we stay there permanently and fight. How long do you think we could keep it up, not just financially, but the human costs. We've already lost a 1004 coalition troops there and for what? Nothing has improved. The troops on the ground admit it themselves that we are losing and they can't win this one, the only people who refuse to except that are the politicians.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

The coalition should have done this years ago. But what happens when you defeat the taliban anyway? You still have a piece of a shit infertile desert land that ships cocaine (or is it heroin) all around the world.

This is a worthy battle....

 

[Solaris]

So what we stay there permanently and fight. How long do you think we could keep it up, not just financially, but the human costs. We've already lost a 1004 coalition troops there and for what? Nothing has improved. The troops on the ground admit it themselves that we are losing and they can't win this one, the only people who refuse to except that are the politicians.

We're fighting an enemy who we will always have to fight.

They will take over Pakistan if we let them win here, they'll try in Iraq too.
We cannot let the Islamofacists win.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Not financially, but they are selling weapons to them. I remember a report on Sky News were they saw the Taliban buying Russian made weapons. The Russians sell the weapons to the Taliban the Taliban uses them to kill Americans and the Russians profit from it.

The Russians have no interest in this. They use the Global War on Terror to justify thier continued operations in Chechnya against a bunch of nut jobs who are alligned with the Taliban. Remember, the Second Chechen War is being faught with most of the factions that tried to gain indipendence from Russia in the first war on Russia's side.

If they were selling weapons to the taliban they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Also, "Russian made" weapons are all over the world. They're also produced all over the world. Military variants of the AK-47 have been or are produced in more than 20 countries. And all those ones that have already been produced didn't simply evaporate after thier first owner decided they didn't need them anymore.

Also, on the subject of it being "America's War" actually look up the numbers of troops deployed before making any rash statements. While yes, the US does have the highest number of troops in Afghan (which is not surprsing, considering its the largest and most well funded military in NATO), the British have over 7,000, the Dutch 1,500, 2,500 Canadians, 1,200 Poles and over 3000 German soldiers. Only 15,000 of the current 42,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan are from the US. (source)

The problem is, most fighting is undertaken by American, British, Canadian, Dutch, Polish & Australian forces as many European Armies are still conscript based (though Norway does deploy its troops for active combat duty inspite of this) making them extremley politically problematic to send into combat, most notably German forces. The German armed forces are some of the most powerful in NATO but take little part in the fighting because of political unwillingness to send conscripts into battle. Or even out of thier compounds at night.